Private Enforcement Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

Which case established the direct effect of Treaty articles?

A

Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What conditions does a Treaty Article have to satisfy to be held to have direct effect?

A

It has to be sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Which case shows that the direct effect of Treaty Articles applies to positive obligations as well as negative obligations?

A

Alfons Lutticke.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Which aspect of EU law did Defrenne v Sabena establish?

A

The fact that Treaty Articles have both horizontal and direct effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What are the facts of Defrenne v Sabena?

A

This case concerned the unequal pay of a Belgian air hostess as this conflicted with Article 157 TFEU. Court held that Treaty Articles are both horizontally and directly effective.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Do Directives have direct effect?

A

They have vertical direct effect but not horizontal direct effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Do Regulations have direct effect?

A

Yes, they have both horizontal and vertical direct effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What does Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority illustrate?

A

The concept of emanations of the state and that Directives have vertical direct effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the facts of Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority?

A

Here a case was brought against the health authority and concerned the authority’s policy whereby female employees were to retire at 60 but male employees were allowed to continue work before retiring at 65. The payment of state pension was an exception to Directive 79/7 which excludes the determination of old age for the purposes of granting the state pension from the application of the equal treatment principle under Article 157 TFEU. The Court had to determine whether the Directive had direct effect and, if so, could this function horizontally as well as vertically. The Court found that the area health authority could be found to be an “emanation of the state”. This applied to the state as employer as well as its function as a public authority.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the facts of Foster v British Gas plc?

A

This case concerned different retirement ages for men and women. It was held that British Gas plc was a public body because it provided a public service. It illustrates the widening of the concept of the public authority by the Court.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the facts of Doughty v Rolls Royce plc?

A

The Court of Appeal held that although the company was wholly owned by the state and so was under state control, this was not sufficient. Foster showed that other criteria was required, in particular the need to provide a public service and the exercise of special powers here, which was not the case.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Which case established the direct effect of Directives?

A

Van Duyn.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the facts of Van Duyn?

A

Van Duyn was refused access to the UK to take a post as a secretary at the church of Scientology. Scientology was an organisation considered socially harmful but the UK government but was not banned. It was held that Directives had direct effect as long as the wording is “sufficiently precise”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was decided in Ratti?

A

Member states should not benefit from their failure to implement a Directive and individuals should be able to rely on the Directive. This is only an argument for Direct Effect.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Which case established the supremacy of EU law?

A

Costa v ENEL.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Which cases confirmed the supremacy of EU law?

A

Simmenthal and Factortame.

17
Q

What are the facts of Francovich?

A

An EU directive stated that each MS had to establish a fund so that there was some money for employees to get compensation if they were made redundant. Italy failed to do this. Mr Francovich and his co-claimants’ company went bust. There is no point in direct effect in this case because this would only help employees in the future. The CJEU stated that there is a principle called state liability inherent in the scheme of the Treaty. This did not exist up until this point.

18
Q

What are the three conditions for state liability?

A

1) Legislation must confer rights;
2) Breach must be sufficiently serious;
3) There must be a connection between the breach and the damage suffered.

19
Q

What three things should you consider in a Private Enforcement question?

A

Direct effect, supremacy and state liability.